And we're back, with much to discuss in the wacky world of national security law.  Join Professors Steve Vladeck and Bobby Chesney as they wrestle with: A *huge* ruling by Judge Pohl in the Military Commission 9/11 prosecution, barring the government from using at trial statements made by the defendants at GTMO to FBI "clean team" interrogators (in what amounts to a CIPA-style sanction in response to government restrictions on defense access to CIA personnel) The government in the Tanvir case (alleging that the plaintiffs were put on the no-fly list by the FBI as punishment for refusing to become informants) has decided to go for en banc review on the RFRA damages question Criminalizing the provision of information about explosives with intent that it be used for a "federal crime of violence"--United States v. Marlonn Hicks as a case study both in First Amendment and vagueness concerns Notes on other recent DOJ national security cases (Iranian spies and an IS fighter who made it to the US) President Trump, Signing Statements, and the NDAA: How does Trump compare to his recent predecessors? John Brennan and Security Clearance Revocations:  Are their constitutional limits that can be litigated? And for your weekly frivolity? Tips for all the 1Ls starting at law schools this fall!